This is so ridiculous !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Old_Hickory]

Rutgers Animal Law course

 

[Gatorboy]

It surely is ridiculous, for animals do not have rights.

Animals can't enter into complex social agreements humans use, such as constitutional republican government. Therefore, animals are not automatically protected by the “rights” humans create. Animals do not have rights, unless we specifically decide to grant them rights. If we do, it will be out of kindness, not duty; we can grant animals special legal protection, but we do not have to.

I do not like to see or hear of cruelty to animals, but thinking that animals have some "right" similar to humans is, as you say, ridiculous.

 

[DocHeb]

What cracks me up is that the students are paying the university for the course, and they are providing uncompensated work for their research/work for the legal firm.

Once a case is successfully litigated by a trial lawyer, they then sell their expert witness testimony transcripts/research papers/discovered documents to other lawyers so they can use them in similiar cases.

But it's OK - the lawyers are just doing it to "help the little guy get his day in court" /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You are a bit "off-tractor" with this post, however. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Old_Hickory]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You are a bit "off-tractor" with this post, however )</font>
I believe this is not the only post that is non tractor related.
I have animals etc/livestock and I was thinking of other farmers and ranchers that own or keep livestock might be interested.
This was the "Rural living" section the last time I looked.
So............................. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[fivestring]

Lawyers are animals.

I agree with gatorboy....
Animals do not have rights. Those weenie-heads need to read the constitution.

 

[gspig]

This should scare the bejesus out of everybody. What do you think these people are going to do with thier law licenses. They will be drumming up work like all the other lawyers, and people will hire them to bring law suits.

 

[Slamfire]

When somebody get on to me about animal rights, I ask what are animal duites?

 

[wroughtn_harv]

I do see some of the logic expressed here as flawed, quite.

If the reason for rights depends upon ability to comprehend and reciprocate then children and the naive have none. Not to mention all of those with elevator problems.

If we assume rights are based upon the ability to reciprocate in kind then people who have relationships with our nonhuman friends probably understand better than most about reciprocity.

Animal rights is all about respect, mostly for oneself. You have to have it to give it.

 

[RichZ]

Well said, Harv!!!!

I agree completely!!!!

 

[fivestring]

Harv, animals DO NOT have rights. One only needs to read the preamble, Constitution and the amendments to the Constitution do understand what the term "rights" means. One cannot give rights to an object.

I agree with you about respect for animals.
I have pets. I am also a hunter. I only kill what I will eat.
It is also mentioned in the good book that man is over ALL beasts, fowl, creepy crawly things, etc. They are here for man to enjoy. Period.

 

[RichZ]

Sorry, Gary, but I have to disagree with you.

I'm not a vegetarian, I know animals do die for people, but I think that animals have a right not to suffer unneccessarily, and have a right to be treated with respect. If they're not harming anything, or needed for food, etc., they have a right to survive, and be left alone. They have a right to their habitat. And I'm willing to bet that you actually agree with what I just said. Nothing wrong with not making an animal suffer needlessly, or leaving them alone if they aren't needed for food, or are harming anything.

You can pick out verses of the bible to go either way on almost any argument that you can think of. The bible also says that it's man's responsiblity to protect and take care of animals.

Really, there's nothing wrong with saying that animals have rights, I think if most people really think about it, they'd agree.

 

[OkeeDon]

Rich, well said. There are rights beyond those "granted" by the Constitution (the Constitution does not actually "grant" any rights; it simply lists a few certain inalienable rights, and guarantees that government will not abridge those rights).

 

[MikePA]

Disagreements arise not because some people are for treating animals with respect and others are not. Rather, some people do not think animals should be granted legal standing.

 

[fivestring]

Like I posted earlier, I totally agree with respect for animals.
I also agree with most of what you just posted. You said basically the same thing that I said; only you worded it differently, <font color="red">"Nothing wrong with not making an animal suffer needlessly, or leaving them alone if they aren't needed for food, or are harming anything." </font>
I agree with you.
Our definition of "right" is different. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
23 years of law enforcement has educated me to what the term "right" means and there is nothing in the word "right" that pertains to anything other than humans. I can not read an animal his "right to an attorney, right to remain silent, etc."
An animal or object does not have the "right" to a trial by a jury of his peers.
That is my point. The term right is a legal term. Objects do not have rights according to law. Animals are still considered objects according to the law.
I believe most people do respect animals. Those that abuse animals should be punished. That's why there are laws protecting animals from cruelty. Most states now have banned animal fighting, ie: cock and dog.
Heck, I've spent more money this year on vet bills than my wife's and my medical bills... including prescriptions! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[MossRoad]

RichZ,
This is not directed at you or anyone in particular, but;

Does your cat have the right to go outside if it wants to? I'll bet it is really unhappy being inside. You should let it out. All of my friends think you should let it out, too. At least for an hour, three times a day. And you have to document what you feed it and when. And your cat food can't contain any animal byproducts either. And you have to provide water for it while it is outside. And you have to stay with it while it is outside because it might kill the songbirds. They have the right to not be eaten by a domestic cat. And you can't raise a cow in a pen. It has to be in a field at least 100 yards long and 40 yards wide because we feel that's the minimum that a cow needs to be happy. And your chickens have to be free range, too, but in a pen so they can't be chased by predators, so it has to be a big pen, about the same as the cow's, but with a fence over the top. It never stops...

Yes, there should be and are laws preventing cruelty to animals, both domestic and wild. But granting them rights is nuts. Who the heck really knows what an animal is thinking? I'll tell you what my cat thinks...

There's the guy that feeds me.
Somebody feed me.
If I let them pet me, maybe they'll feed me.
Hey, that thing just moved, maybe I should bite it in the neck until it stops moving, then I could eat it.
Sleeping in this sunny spot feels good.
Somebody feed me.
Scratch me there, then feed me.
If I rub my nose on you, you'll smell like me and I smell like cat food.

That's about it. My guess is most animals think on similar lines. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[fivestring]

<font color="red">"Rather, some people do not think animals should be granted legal standing." </font>

I think the animals should hire a lawyer (or one in training like this post started about) and sue for rights. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
I know quite a few lawyers that would probably take the case. (I didn't say they were my friends) /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif OJ's team is free right now.
I think animals should be given the right to get a job, pay their own way and buy me food once in a while. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Heck, they can probably be given the right to vote in Florida or California!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

No, never mind. My cats think like MossRoad's cats. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
They know they have it made and wouldn't want to change the system. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Henro]

It wasn't too long ago when in this country certain human beings had no rights whiles others did.

There are probably places on the earth today where certain humans have no rights.

What each of us thinks does not matter too much.

In the end it is the ones with power that have the rights, and the weak who have no rights.

This goes for the lion that eats the zebra, or the Olympic athlete who performed for Sadam's son Udey, or anyone anywhere.

If you think you have rights and animals don't, rub some good smelling stuff on your body and take a walk up in grizzly country...then you will see who has rights...

If you think about it, the rights anyone/anything has depends on where they find themselves in the space-time continuum... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

At this point in time we have the power and animals have no rights...fact of life...in a thousand years we may all be vegetarians...who knows...and then people will be worried about plant rights... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Or insect rights... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

You guys got me so /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif I don't know what's right!

 

[RichZ]

OK, Gary, I see your point. I wasn't thinking of "right" in the legal fashion.

That's the trouble with semantics, sometimes people are actually in agreement, but they don't know it!! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[fivestring]

Let's go to Henro's and have a brew or four /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif and some bbq!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[OkeeDon]

<font color="blue"> ...then people will be worried about plant rights... </font>

Do you ever hear all the little tiny screams when you're mowing? /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif